Latest news with #SamTobin
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Lawyers face sanctions for citing fake cases with AI, warns UK judge
By Sam Tobin LONDON (Reuters) -Lawyers who use artificial intelligence to cite non-existent cases can be held in contempt of court or even face criminal charges, London's High Court warned on Friday, in the latest example of generative AI leading lawyers astray. A senior judge lambasted lawyers in two cases who apparently used AI tools when preparing written arguments, which referred to fake case law, and called on regulators and industry leaders to ensure lawyers know their ethical obligations. "There are serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused," Judge Victoria Sharp said in a written ruling. "In those circumstances, practical and effective measures must now be taken by those within the legal profession with individual leadership responsibilities ... and by those with the responsibility for regulating the provision of legal services." The ruling comes after lawyers around the world have been forced to explain themselves for relying on false authorities, since ChatGPT and other generative AI tools became widely available more than two years ago. Sharp warned in her ruling that lawyers who refer to non-existent cases will be in breach of their duty to not mislead the court, which could also amount to contempt of court. She added that "in the most egregious cases, deliberately placing false material before the court with the intention of interfering with the administration of justice amounts to the common law criminal offence of perverting the course of justice". Sharp noted that legal regulators and the judiciary had issued guidance about the use of AI by lawyers, but said that "guidance on its own is insufficient to address the misuse of artificial intelligence".
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
EY negligently missed huge fraud at collapsed hospital operator, $3 billion UK trial hears
By Sam Tobin LONDON (Reuters) -EY failed to spot a major fraud by main shareholders of UAE hospital operator NMC Health in what lawyers for the firm's administrators described as disgraceful auditing, at the start of a roughly $3 billion London trial on Monday. The administrators of NMC – a FTSE 100 company when it collapsed in 2020 after disclosing more than $4 billion in hidden debt – are suing over audits from 2012 to 2018, when EY gave an unqualified opinion that NMC's accounts were accurate. The company's administrators Alvarez & Marsal say EY, one of the world's "Big Four" auditors and formerly known as Ernst & Young, was negligent in failing to get proper access to NMC's books, missing billions in unreported borrowing. EY, however, denies the negligence allegation and argues that it was NMC's own senior personnel who perpetrated the fraud and manipulated its accounts, hiding the fraud from EY. The 12-week trial at the High Court which began on Monday is the latest lawsuit brought against a major auditor and comes after recent criticism of EY specifically over work for travel firm Thomas Cook and German payments company Wirecard. NMC Health PLC listed in London in 2012 and joined the FTSE 100 in 2017, before short-seller Muddy Waters questioned its financials in December 2019 sending NMC's shares tumbling by almost a third in a day. NMC's administrators were seeking up to 2.7 billion pounds from EY in damages for losses, largely relating to undisclosed guarantees, but court filings for the trial put the figure at around 2 billion pounds plus interest. Their lawyer Simon Salzedo said EY's audits over seven years were among the "most fundamentally flawed examples of big-firm auditing that have disgraced a courtroom in this jurisdiction". Salzedo accepted that auditors giving a wrong opinion did not amount to negligence, but said: "Two wrong opinions looks very much like carelessness and to give seven in a row is rather harder to explain away." But EY's lawyers argued in court filings the auditing firm was "itself a principal target and victim of the fraud" committed by NMC staff for the benefit of its principal shareholders. NMC's case was based on expecting an auditor "to do the impossible by uncovering a pervasive and collusive fraud being practised and covered up in effect by the directors and management", EY's lawyers said. NMC has separately brought litigation against its founder BR Shetty, who denies any wrongdoing, and others in London, the UAE and the United States. Sign in to access your portfolio
Straits Times
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Straits Times
UK export of F-35 parts to Israel unlawful, Palestinian NGO tells court
Protesters demonstrate outside the Royal Courts of Justice ahead of a legal challenge brought by the Palestinian NGO Al-Haq over Britain's exports of parts for F-35 fighter jets to Israel, amid its conflict with Hamas, in London, Britain, November 18, 2024. REUTERS/Sam Tobin/File Photo LONDON - Britain's decision to allow the export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel, despite accepting they could be used in breach of international humanitarian law in Gaza, was unlawful, a Palestinian rights group told London's High Court on Tuesday. Al-Haq, a group based in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, is taking legal action against Britain's Department for Business and Trade over its decision to exempt F-35 parts when it suspended some arms export licences last year. The United Kingdom had assessed that Israel was not committed to complying with international humanitarian law, in relation to humanitarian access and the treatment of detainees, as the basis for its decision in September. But, after the Ministry of Defence said suspending licences for F-35 parts would have an impact on international security and "undermine U.S. confidence in the UK and NATO", Britain decided to "carve out" F-35 licences. Al-Haq, which documents alleged rights violations by Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinians' self-rule body in the West Bank, argues that the ministry's decision was unlawful as it was in breach of Britain's obligations under international law, including the Geneva Convention. The group's lawyer, Raza Husain, said its case at the High Court was being heard "against a backdrop of human calamity unfolding in Gaza", since Israel responded to the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks with a devastating military campaign. Nearly 53,000 Palestinians have been killed, according to Hamas-run Gaza health authorities. Husain said the vast majority of Al-Haq's case did not require the High Court to rule on "the lawfulness or otherwise" of Israel's actions in Gaza, but whether British ministers had misunderstood the law when it decided on the F-35 carve-out. The British government, however, argues ministers were entitled to take "exceptional measures" to not suspend F-35 licences to avoid the potential impact on international peace and security. Its lawyer, James Eadie, said in court filings that the decision was "consistent with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations". Last year, a coalition of groups, including Al-Haq, asked a Dutch court to stop the Netherlands exporting weaponry to Israel and trading with Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories. Israel says it takes care to avoid harming civilians and denies committing abuses or war crimes in Gaza. In March Israel ended a January ceasefire deal with Hamas, after the two sides could not agree on terms for extending it, and renewed its military operations. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Apple ordered to pay Optis $502M in UK patent dispute, Reuters says
Apple (AAPL) has been ordered to pay Optis Cellular Technology $502M for the use of 4G patents in devices including iPhones and iPads, Reuters' Sam Tobin reports, citing a ruling by London's Court of Appeal. Optis filed the suit in 2019 over use of the patents which it said are essential to certain technological standards such as 4G. An Apple spokesperson told Reuters they were 'disappointed by this decision and plan to appeal', adding, 'Optis makes no products and their sole business is to sue companies using patents they buy. We will continue to defend against their attempts to extract unreasonable payments.' Reference Link):( Discover companies with rock-solid fundamentals in TipRanks' Smart Value Newsletter. Receive undervalued stocks, resilient to market uncertainty, delivered straight to your inbox. Published first on TheFly – the ultimate source for real-time, market-moving breaking financial news. Try Now>> See Insiders' Hot Stocks on TipRanks >> Read More on AAPL: Disclaimer & DisclosureReport an Issue Apple Stock (AAPL) Flattened after Ordered to Pay $500M in Historic 4G Patent Dispute Qualcomm price target lowered to $190 from $210 at Susquehanna Qualcomm price target lowered to $200 from $240 at Benchmark electroCore's Truvaga works with Apple Health app Options Volatility and Implied Earnings Moves Today, May 01, 2025 Sign in to access your portfolio
The Star
01-05-2025
- Business
- The Star
Apple must pay Optis $502 million lump sum in UK patent dispute, court rules
FILE PHOTO: A man checks an iPhone 16 Pro at an Apple store in Beijing, China September 20, 2024. REUTERS/Florence Lo/File Photo LONDON (Reuters) -Apple must pay a U.S. patent holder $502 million for the use of 4G patents in devices including iPhones and iPads, London's Court of Appeal ruled on Thursday, in the latest stage of a long-running legal battle. Texas-based Optis Cellular Technology LLC sued Apple in London in 2019 over its use of patents which Optis says are essential to certain technological standards, such as 4G. London's High Court ruled in 2023 that Apple should pay Optis a total of $56.43 million plus interest to cover past and future sales over a set period. But Optis argued that was far too low and challenged the decision at an appeal heard in February and March. The Court of Appeal said in a partially-redacted written ruling that Apple should pay a lump sum of $502 million, not including interest, for the period from 2013 to 2027. The lump sum relates to a global licence to use Optis' patents. An Apple spokesperson said they were "disappointed by this decision and plan to appeal". "Optis makes no products and their sole business is to sue companies using patents they buy," the spokesperson added. "We will continue to defend against their attempts to extract unreasonable payments." Optis did not immediately respond to a request for comment outside U.S. office hours. Thursday's ruling is the latest decision in the legal battle between Apple and Optis over the FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms to use Optis' patents. (Reporting by Sam Tobin; Editing by Susan Fenton)
